A note about a future manned shuttle

[blazingcessna]

OK I have been reading a lot here and on other boards, and I have one thing to say.<br /><br />None of you seem to get that there is NO vehicle design I can find out there to replace the STS Orbiter by 2010. <br /><br />NASA has not put any recources into future vehicles beyond the very basic of ideas. Not that they dont have the money (they DON'T), there is no support for it from any corner of this nation. No one wants to explore space simply because it is too big for them understand. Or it will impact thier welfare/unemployment checks! <br /><br />Not enough of us whom believe in the exploration of space are active in the positions that could make a difference, and humanity will literaly fall back in our evolution for it. <br /><br />Have any of you ever even put YOUR ideas for the next shuttle to paper? I have. But I do not have that little document that proves I survived 4 years of binge drinking and party benders (college). How can someone like me even get a NASA engineer to look at my ideas? How about you?<br /><br />I have the silver flame prooft suit on and I am ready for action!

 

[najab]

><i>None of you seem to get that there is NO vehicle design I can find out there to replace the STS Orbiter by 2010.</i><p>Well I wouldn't say that none of us "get it" - if you look again you'll find we've mentioned the 'gap' between 2010 and 2014 many times. What's important to note, however, is that the current intention is not to <i>replace</i> the Orbiters at all. It would seem that TPTB have finally reached a conclusion that space enthusiasts reached many years ago - that there is a pressing need for a space "taxi" instead of the "truck" we currently have.<p>Hence the proposed CEV will be a crew-only vehicle. Separating crew and heavy cargo has multiple advantages, not the least of which is increasing flight rates, which will decrease costs overall.</p></p>

 

[blazingcessna]

A taxi is NOT ENOUGH!!! The whole point is to INCREASE our ability not DECREASE IT!!!!!!! You folks have no FRIGGIN IDEA ABOUT WHAT TO DO! WE NEE MORE NOT LESS!!! I vehicle that can carry 120,000lbs to orbit is what is the NEXT LOGICAL STEP! If you dont like it KISS MY REAR END! Unimaginitive PUNKS!!! I had hoped to find people that wanted to explore SPACE, not low earth orbit!!!! Know what I found here? A bunch of business a usual kissbutts! At least so far! Some one PLEASE prove me wrong!!!!!

 

[robotical]

How old are you? Four? You're not going to get far on any message board with that attitude. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Maybe his next generation shuttle is driven by hot air <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shyningnight]

What are you, 12?<br /><br />Try reading back beyond the first page...<br />You'll find a LOT of interesting discussions about Heavy Lift vehicles.. and lots of discussion about other launch methods.<br /><br />And if you continue to cop an abusive attitude like that, I would wager that no one here would be particularly interested in engaging in discourse with you. <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[jurgens]

dude calm the hell down... Read up on the proposals for the CEV, one of the Teams is actually considering creating a 130,000lb heavy lift rocket to send up CEV modules because the 130,000lb rocket wouldnt cost much more in the long run compared to a 60,000lb rocket.<br /><br /><br />Also on the 2010-2014 gap http://www.space.com/news/050420_iss_cev.html

 

[blazingcessna]

Sorry for the attitude yesterday, I was very upset and it came through in my posting. My most humble apologies. I will from now on leave my emotion at the door. Also I am a white guy 32 years of age. <br /><br />I understand about the 4 year vehicle gap, but I really do not feel that the heavy lift booster ideas, nor the "Space Taxi" are the single answer. Not that they aren't important to teh overall program, just that we really need now is something on the large side, reuseable and efficent.<br /><br />I wonder what happened to the SSTO designs of the late 1980's and early 1990's? Was teh whole idea thrown in the can? Has technology not caught up enough to build one? I seem to recall one of the bigger problems were the turbofan/ram/scram jet engines designs. Materials didn't exist that could allow some of those ideas, but we now have the GE90-115B turbofan. That is one huge and powerful engine. <br /><br />I need to find out if the SSME can run on Jet A and an oxidizer. One of my "way out there" ideas is hatching. Had the crazy idea to build the primary airframe out of composites, using aluminum and titanium where composites would fail or could not otherwise be used. <br /><br />What do you think?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...we really need now is something on the large side, reuseable and efficent."</font><br /><br />One of the problems is -- that set of requirements is somewhat like Goldin's golden three "Faster, Better Cheaper". The engineering refrain is 'Pick any Two'. One of the reasons the shuttle isn't efficient is because of its size. If it were half the size (or less), it'd be both more efficient *and* more reusable (i.e. be much easier to refurb between flights).<br /><br />The question that you have to answer is: why do we <b>need</b> the ship you're describing? If the vehicle you envision is primarily a means to get people into space -- why does it need to be big? If it's primarily a means to get cargo into space -- why does it need to be reusable (i.e. why isn't a partially reusable concept like a SDV or a Falcon-V style booster an option)?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I wonder what happened to the SSTO designs of the late 1980's and early 1990's? "</font><br /><br />Read up on the X-33/Venturestar -- there's plenty of documentation out on the net. What you'll find is that it was going to be small (<b>much</b> smaller payload than the shuttle), and not provide the efficiencies that would have made it a commercial success. SSTO craft <b>by definition</b> are not efficient -- at least in their use of propellant. In fact -- the more stages you add to a rocket -- the more efficiency you would gain in terms of propellant usage. Obviously this is countered to a degree by the added mass and complexity of the staging equipment itself.<br /><br />What an SSTO loses in propellant -- it buys in reusability of the hardware. On an ideal SSTO -- the only item that needs to be replaced after a flight is propellant/oxidizer (In the real world -- there's liable to be more refurb required than that). <b>If</b> the increased costs of the propellant, plus the costs of additional launches (i.e. vs. staged vehicle with a larger payload capacity

 

[georgeniebling]

<i>"I need to find out if the SSME can run on Jet A and an oxidizer." <br /><br />No more than you could fill up your current car with LOX/LH and expect it to run. </i /><br /><br />and with gas prices the way they are ... ;-)<br /><br />of course, with KSC's convenient seaside locale ... we could just float a nice foreign oil tanker up to the Shuttle Stack ... "Fill 'er up!"

 

[trailrider]

You've raised a number of subjects, and the "answers" are not that simple to resolve.<br /><br />The mission(s) for which the Shuttle (aka the "Space Transportation System) was designed were a combination. The original idea was a completely reusable aerospace craft, capable of lifting 60,000 lbs of payload to LEO (in a 28.5 degree inclination orbit, 45,000 lbs to polar orbit (from Vandenberg AFB, CA), with a simultaneous capability to carry a crew of seven, landing on land (as opposed to ocean landing like Mercury, Gemini and Apollo), with a crossrange capability of 1000 miles from the ballistic flightpath. The payload requirement and the crossrange capability was generated by the Air Force, which intended to utilize the large cargo capacity to launch large classified military payloads and recover them! The capability also would permit construction of a large LEO manned satellite for scientific and potentially military experiments.<br /><br />As I mentioned, the entire vehicle was to be recoverable, by means of a manned flyback booster having jet engines as well as rockets (at least one configuration I saw while working at one of the bidders).<br /><br />There was one "small" problem...it became obvious that there just wasn't enough money available. Don't forget, we were still involved in the Viet Nam War and its aftermath!<br /><br />The concept was then re-defined to include only recovery of Solid Rocket Boosters, with a non-recoverable External Tank. <br /><br />Problems cropped up immediately, long before the first flight of Columbia. The Thermal Protection System turned out to be a real bear! Cost overruns and techical problems stretched the program out by years before the first DDT&E flight. Still, we SEEMED to have a real quantum leap in aerospace flight...and, indeed, we did! But not as great a one as we had hoped. (Believe me, I really was thrilled out of my head when I heard (on the NASA feed, in the lobby of Martin Marietta Space Science Building) John

 

[starfhury]

Nice post, but I've yet to see a comprehensive plan to get us out of LEO. As things stand, there's nothing available or will be available in the next decade to do the job. Let's assume we want to build a moon base. We will have to launch almost everything up from earth. How much mass would we need to launch to the moon and what do we have in inventory or on the drawing board capable of doing this? Maybe I'm blind, but I see nothing. We really need to rethink everything we are doing in this area,<br />To get anything to the moon of signicant mass we might need atleast two launches. The first to fling the payload to LEO, and the second to heist a propulsion module to attach to the first to push it out of LEO and land it on the moon. If we try a Saturn V approach, we are not going to land a lot of mass on the moon for the cost of doing business. If we use two of them, we double the cost which makes it too expensive and very unlikely to be done. CEV as far as I know only address part of the problem, but I fail to see why we need a space taxi when there are hardly enough places for it to visit to justify it's existence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>I fail to see why we need a space taxi when there are hardly enough places for it to visit to justify it's existence.</i><p>There's at least one - the Station. The problem with using the Shuttle to service the Station is the payload bay. Every time you send people up there, there's this big payload bay that needs to go along with them. Now, that's fine during the construction phase - send along a module or two - but once they get into the support phase it becomes a waste.<p>That's why OV-102 was able to get into the Station rotation, she was too heavy for assembly missions (and so was becoming useless), but they could justify keeping her for ULF missions.<p>The idea of a 'space taxi' is that they can launch to the Station (and, one hopes, to Bigelow's station) without feeling guilty about the waste.<p>I agree fully, however, that MtM without some kind of heavy-lift, is going to turn out to be more complex and expensive than it has to be.</p></p></p></p>

 

[blazingcessna]

I almost swear I am reading "Kill the STS relaunch the Apollo-Saturn program." I seem to recall that the GAO stated it was around 540 million per mission in 2000 or 2002. I also recall a NASA report that stated that in adjusted dollars a single lunar mission was 890 million. If anyone can back this or correct it go right ahead. <br /><br />The station is I fear going to be abandoned. Unless Branson and Virgin Galactic want it. But I really dont see that happening. Until we can show corporations that they can make money out there, we are stuck right here. <br /><br />I am also mortified about the way the media has been treating NASA. Oh and by the way, the Orbiter it's self has never had a catastrophic failure. Challenger was caused by a gap in the aft-field joint on the right SRB. Columbia was damaged by something hitting the left wing leading edge, poping a t-seal and possibly cracking one or two carbon-carbon tiles. <br /><br />I really do not agree with the foam explanation at least the way that testing went. Basically 4x4 foam beams were fired at the wing mockup. The stuff that was seen hitting the orbiter wing was much smaller in mass and had a larger surface area than the test article. THe test was basically like shooting blunt pencil at a cardboard with CO2! <br /><br />Wooh! That's over.<br /><br />OK so May 22nd or not? Will she get airbore before the end of the launch window or will it be later in the year? Wonder if I can still get motel reservation round there?

 

[najab]

><i>I also recall a NASA report that stated that in adjusted dollars a single lunar mission was 890 million. If anyone can back this or correct it go right ahead.</i><p>You either read wrong or the report was incorrect. Every report/article I've seen says that in adjusted dollars a single Saturn-V launch is about $2 billion or so.<p>><i>The station is I fear going to be abandoned. Unless Branson and Virgin Galactic want it.</i><p>They can want it all they want. Until they develop a vehicle capable of <i>reaching</i> it, they are a non-consideration.<p>><i>Oh and by the way, the Orbiter it's self has never had a catastrophic failure....Columbia was damaged by something hitting the left wing leading edge....</i><p>I once said the same thing, the professional rocket engineers on the board pointed out that since it was a piece of the launch vehicle that caused the accident, it really was a failure of the system as a whole.<p>><i>The stuff that was seen hitting the orbiter wing was much smaller in mass and had a larger surface area than the test article.</i><p>Actually, the larger surface area cuts both ways. Remember that the foam left the tank and immediately started deccelerating, the Shuttle flew past it. The larger surface area means that it deccelerated <i>faster</i>, which increased the relative velocity at impact.</p></p></p></p></p></p></p>

 

[blazingcessna]

OK crazy idea 345,675!<br /><br />How about using the CEV as a command module and bring up parts for a TLI ship using the STS or HLELV? Assemble it at the station and head on to the moon. I would guess the ship could just be a light open lattice structure, with the cargo suspended inside, being the stuff needed to get down on the surface, small construction, say 3 folks, and the ship returns to earth to get more stuff to build more support and lab facilities? <br /><br />Seems a possible place to start. Anything like this being considered?<br /><br />Oh and myself and a few other pilots around here do not agree about the orbiter failing. Now if say teh hypergolic fuel tanks had ruptured, then that would have been an orbiter failure, but saying that the ET or SRB is included is like saying the glider crashed 'cause the tow plane hit it. See what I mean?

 

[blazingcessna]

SO where is the detailed plans located at? Or are the stashed away at Area 51? Or just locked in a cabinet somewhere?

 

[ve7rkt]

Cessna, in your opinion, what does the STS do that we still need, and that a CEV + unmanned cargo launches won't do better, not to mention cheaper? About the only thing I can see is bringing cargo back down from LEO to Earth, and I was under the opinion that this really didn't happen much anymore.<br /><br />Comparing the cost of a heavy lifter like Saturn V to the cost of STS doesn't work. Saturn V carried twice as much payload as the Shuttle, AND threw it at the Moon instead of LEO. Flying a capsule to LEO on a production line will not cost as much as sending a capsule to the Moon on 13 hand-crafted rockets.<br /><br />For cargo capacity, even with slow launch rates, a Delta IV Heavy costs less than half as much, and lifts more cargo. When they thought they'd sell more commercial launches, the per-launch cost was even less than that.<br /><br />I love the Shuttle. It's a very cool system, and it is awesome in the traditional sense of "fill with awe". But once ISS construction is finished, will the STS be the system we need?

 

[nacnud]

The down mass capability will become increasingly necessary as the ISS nears completion. You need to get the experiments back down again.

 

[holmec]

To give a sane response.<br /><br />A space taxi, eventhough it seems less, is actually more. You can fly them more offten and at less cost. Then get the cargo up by tradidtional rocket. <br /><br />so it reduces cost, risk, and ups the performance of the whole systems and teams. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[blazingcessna]

Thanks for the link! I just saw what looks like a uprated version of the old shuttle-c concept! Think that will ever make it to the pad or will the new HL Delta's be able to pick-up that load?